Epstein Secrets

ions.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—p

L & TWIST, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 AM. CRIML. REV. 649, 651-55 (1976). ° Exec. Order 12,360, 47 Fe

t none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner -

l & Twist, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim L. Rev. 649, 651-55 (1976). ° Exec. Order 12,360, 47 F

rged conduct under the CVRA. See United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 327 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (conclu

ub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2014 (1984) (directly amending Rule 32). ! Fed. R. Crim. P.32(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 2 Td. at 32(d)(2)(A). 3 Td. * William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.